AaaAAArrgh!! The sale of automatic weapons were already banned by the National Firearms Act in 1934. Jeebus man, get your facts straight.
Made a throwaway account just to set the record straight for all these gun-debate idiots. For the first, last, and only time, people:
Semi-automatic: one trigger pull = one dead second grader.
Automatic: one trigger pull = a classroom full of dead second graders.
AR-15 = semiautomatic. M16/M-4 = automatic.
(For completeness sake, some M4 and M16 also have a burst-fire mode, but why the fuck would you want to use anyway?)
Anyways, all these look the same and fire the same 5.56x45mm NATO (.223) high-velocity intermediate rifle cartridge. But only the AR (and its numerous variants) is the easily obtainable firearm of choice by responsible hobby shooters, NRA fanatics, homegrown ISIS sympathizers, the mentally unstable and beta males with small genitalia. (And yes, I own one in case you were wondering. A 1982 Colt , because even a 30-year-old AR is of better quality than those shitty new Bushmasters)
The issue shouldn't be about banning guns -- in this climate it's politically toxic, and practically impossible given the high volume of ARs already in circulation. Liberal idiots are apparently too smug to recognize this, and second amendment defenders are too stubborn to ever concede any point, even if their own relatives should die in a mass shooting.
Besides, any motivated individual with rudimentary firearms training can cause mass casualties with a legally purchased semi-automatic weapon, provided they have sufficient ammunition storage capacity, know how to aim, control recoil, and have some decent optics to improve target acquisition. Hell, something like the CZ scorpion is semi-auto, legally classified as a pistol, and at an affordable ~$800 retail, it's a shoo-in for anyone who can't get their hands on an AR.
So, if you want to make a difference and have a conversation about gun violence that won't quickly devolve into a shouting match, you shouldn't focus on the gun, but on the ammunition (which, incidentally, is not mentioned in the 2nd amendment). More specifically, the discussion should be about 1) the accessibility of ammunition, and 2) the ability of the gun's operator to fire a high amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
Not that I have the answers readily available -- that's what our tax dollars pay congress for -- but this could be accomplished by either severely regulating the sale of ammunition (no more than, say, 5 rounds at a time unless you are at a gun range where you will fire all the rounds and leave the cartridges behind); or by running extensive background checks / tracking anyone buying ammo in bulk or those having the equipment to reuse the casings. Other ideas welcomed here.
I suppose a high-capacity magazine ban is the closest thing proposed so far that might prevent mass shootings, but the jury is out on that one, since those determined enough will find creative ways around it. (like duct taping several magazines together and learning how to rapidly reload).
So, that's enough shade thrown at all sides in this idiotic debate.
TL;DR - When it comes to a sensible debate about gun violence, don't listen to Seth McFarlane. Or Wayne LaPierre. Or any TV/radio talk show host for that matter. Think for yourselves. Don't be sheep.